Romney ‘Advisor’: Mitt Will Bring a White Man’s Touch

I was simply stating that "man" is but an abstraction whereas "Frenchman" and "Russian" are concrete.

"In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But,
as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him." - Joseph de Maistre

Originally posted by RealSpoke
With your logic only Italians can appreciate spaghetti.

Or would they, since they got the art of making noodles from China? I wonder how many great Italian restaurants there are in Beijing?

Perhaps only ancient Greeks and Romans, who created the first democracies and republics, truly understood those concepts.

My point is, of course, anyone can understand these concepts fully, especially if you grow up a part of a culture that is based upon it. For Misoir
to say that I don't understand what the Constitution truly means because my great grand parents and great-great grandparents grew up in shtetls in
Poland and the Ukraine is frankly offensive, I'm sure as offensive as to anyone else who doesn't come from white, British stock. It doesn't come
from my mom's side either, I guess, since they are Irish and Polish Catholics.

Pseudo-science and does not make sense? How does it not make sense? Even if you disagree with me even the simplest of reasoning could deduce the
points I had made.

As for understanding the Constitution, yes a person can understand it regardless of race but only in an abstract way. It will not be concrete
for them. The understanding of it will be the same as a person understands "man" compared to a Frenchman or an American or a Russian.

I do not understand how you think a Blackman who has been born and raised in America
is somehow going to be clueless about America in the way you suppose.

I was simply stating that "man" is but an abstraction whereas "Frenchman" and "Russian" are concrete.

"In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But,
as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him." - Joseph de Maistre

But wouldn't those all be just cultural creations? I mean Americans can move to France and have children and their children would be considered
French. They would have been brought up in French culture and society which would be their basis for understanding the world. Their parents may share
stories of America but the child would not really grasp the American experience. That has nothing to do with genetics.

I am a History major so I should know about European Middle Ages, Renaissance, migration period, and pre-Christian Europe. I did not say that
hereditary aristocracy was best or that any system is perfect. But it depends on whether one sees wealth, safety, and equality as better than virtue,
tradition, and order. Of course I am simplifying everything here because I do not feel like spending my entire night arguing with people who clearly
disagree with me and have no intent of ever agreeing with me.

Virtue? What virtues specifically of those times do you think were better than the virtues we hold as important today? The word "virtue" is a very
nebulous term.

Tradition? Again, what traditions are worth keeping from that period that we've lost? Again a very vague term that sounds nice, until you start
analyzing what "tradition" and "virtue" often meant for people of those times.

And then we get to "order." Order at what cost? Order for who over who? Who gets to benefit from that order, who gets ground into dust by it?
Order is too often just a byword for "murder," (they almost rhyme), but then you did say you prefer the deprivations of Vlad the Impaler to "Hey
Ya!" or "Rapper's Delight," so I think most can see where you are coming from.

People cling to their abstractions, safety, and perversion of morality to get them through existence. Even the most brutal forms of serfdom,
such as that of 18th century Russia, did not harm our civilization the way "liberte, egalite, and fraternite" has.

As the descendant of those who suffered through and survived 18th Century Russian serfdom, I respectfully have to disagree. My entire family now is
much better educated, much more comfortable, much safer and freer and living a far, FAR more civilized existence than our ancestors could have ever
conceived of in their wildest dreams.

When I look at the advancements in science, technology and yes, also what continues to be created in art, such as the entire new art form of
filmmaking, of which I have spent much of my life as a part of, I think our civilization is doing quite well on the whole.

Alright this thread has turned into a debate/argument over my ideas rather than exactly what the topic of the OP is. That is not fair to him/her. So
this shall be my last post on the subject. If you do want to discuss it more with me send a u2u.

"Thus, from the maggot up to man, the universal law of the violent destruction of living things is unceasingly fulfilled. The entire earth,
perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be immolated without end, without restraint, without
respite, until the consummation of the world...." - Joseph de Maistre

"There is no form of rational and assured government save an aristocracy. A monarchy or a republic, based upon democracy, are equally absurd and
feeble. The immense nausea of advertisements. There are but three beings worthy of respect: the priest, the warrior and the poet. To know, to kill and
to create. The rest of mankind may be taxed and drudged, they are born for the stable, that is to say, to practise what they call professions." -
Charles Baudelaire

"More people have been imprisoned for Liberty, humiliated and tortured for Equality, and slaughtered for Fraternity in this century, than for any
less hypocritical motives, during the Middle Ages." - Roy Campbell

"The Americans' 'open-mindedness', which is sometimes cited in their favor, is the other side of their interior formlessness. The same goes for
their 'individualism'. Individualism and personality are not the same: the one belongs to the formless world of quantity, the other to the world of
quality and hierarchy. The Americans are the living refutation of the Cartesian axiom, "I think, therefore I am": Americans do not think, yet they
are. The American 'mind', puerile and primitive, lacks characteristic form and is therefore open to every kind of standardization." - Julius
Evola

""Taste is relative" is the excuse adopted by those eras that have bad taste." - Nicolas Gomez Davila

"For the Age has itself become vulgar, and most people have no idea to what extent they are themselves tainted. The bad manners of all parliaments,
the general tendency to connive at a rather shady business transaction if it promises to bring in money without work, jazz and Negro dances as the
spiritual outlet in all circles of society, women painted like prostitutes, the efforts of writers to win popularity by ridiculing in their novels and
plays the correctness of well-bred people, and the bad taste shown even by the nobility and old princely families in throwing off every kind of social
restraint and time-honoured custom: all of these go to prove that it is now the vulgar mob that gives the tone. " - Oswald Spengler

"That every will must consider every other will its equal — would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of
man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I was simply stating that "man" is but an abstraction whereas "Frenchman" and "Russian" are concrete.

My contention is that the Frenchman and Russian are approximations and only serve to obscure
basic human similarities and differences which transcend origin, genetics or identity. It is those
things that equip a man with the ability to understand, not nationality or culture. Nationality and
culture are abstractions when they are sized up with human nature, which is realm that is far more
concrete than imprinted social norms. I am not British, so am I American? How can I understand
America, if I am not British or if I do not know of the semantics that you think constitute
Americanism?

Where does the mechanics of logical framework meet the truss of your philosophy?

Good to see you back Misoir, have missed your fine contributions. From a British perspective. I believe Obama would be much more popular than Romney,
despite Romney's Anglo Saxon ancestry. The British establishment have a love affair with Obama that I have not seen with other presidents, the Queen
has given his kids private rides in carriages around the palace. I imagine they will view Romney as being a bit crude and brash.

A lot of Western nations have a love affair with President Obama. I doubt that is the case in the Middle East though... Anyway I enjoyed the Queen's
jubilee a few weeks back, it seems like she went all out for it. Did she really think that was the best idea with the rather poor state of British
finances? I had been meaning to ask a Briton that question but always forgot to until now.

Trying to come to terms with why Obama acts the way he does, why he approaches foreign policy the way he does; is a mystery.

Is it because his world view is dfferent?
Is it because he grew up surrounded by people who dismissed American exceptionalism?
Does he look at America differently than most Americans do?
Did going to a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years shape his mindset?

"This is the first time I've been proud of my country". Michelle Obama

My opinion.

Obama sees America as nothing more than another country on the globe. He doesn't see it as better or worse than any othr country, therefore, he
doesn't work towards anything that would benefit America over any other country.
It is a poor coach who doesn't think his team is better than the competition.

Obama's approach to economic policy is reflected in everything he does. It's leveling the playing field so that every person, every nation has the
same.

Kind of like a coach that trains his team to "tie" in every game versus winning.

Is that a white thing or a black thing?

No.

But it is not a recipe for success.

Your opinion uses the analogy of running this country to playing a game. I can see you now on the sidelines of the big game holding a sign that reads
"Go Team Go!!" Your analogy is flawed which is why your opinion is flawed. In my opinion.

This isn't a game where people "win or lose". We don't have a coach. We have a CEO. This is a business, whether you like it or not, where people
succeed or they don't. And also, whether you like it not, this is a global business. America is not an island. Neither is any other country on the
planet. Meaning that we are doing business with each other at one level or another. Some countries are more involved with each other in more ways than
others, but we're all involved with each other. Competition is for people who don't know how to get along and succeed at the same time. It's for
people who don't recognize their strengths and weaknesses for what they are and want to get to the top just for the sake of it. Whether being at the
top is the best thing for business is irrelevant, just so long as they're on top and can say "Look me. I won" All the while their business is going
down the sh***er because they don't know what they're doing. But hey, thank God we live in a country where we're free to compete with each other.
Right?

It's people like you and Romney who are sinking this ship because you're the 5 years old's who put their hands over their eyes and say "Since I
can't see you, you're not there." Obama doesn't do that and it pisses people off. People want an "American" in the White House. Whatever the
hell that is. America is a global country. Always has been. You know, that immigrant thing? That thing that no other country does nearly to the extent
that we've ALWAYS done? To lead a country as if there is only one race and ethnicity within it when there is, in fact, more different races and
ethnicities here than any other country is about the most socially retarded thing you can do. Look at the cross section of the people who live in this
country vs. the cross section of the people who run this country and you'll see a disparity that's at the heart of the problem.

The best thing you can do for the sake of the position of POTUS? Bring someone in who has world experience. Like Obama. Or at this point, Hillary
Clinton. ( You hear that U.N.? ) Someone who knows how the world works. We all know how America "works". No mystery there. The political machine
needs to die and we all know it. It needs to be replaced with a business model, with NO political affiliation, that has a global agenda because we are
a part of the global community that has no uniform political agenda. Problem is, people can't see past the town they live in. People like you. People
choose not to see the whole picture. Go back to my "5 year old" analogy, grow up and bring America with you. Otherwise it's going to stay in the
2nd grade, walking in circles with a limp, while it's "competition" graduates college.

This isn't a game where people "win or lose". We don't have a coach. We have a CEO. This is a business, whether you like it or not, where people
succeed or they don't. And also, whether you like it not, this is a global business. America is not an island. Neither is any other country on the
planet. Meaning that we are doing business with each other at one level or another. Some countries are more involved with each other in more ways than
others, but we're all involved with each other. Competition is for people who don't know how to get along and succeed at the same time. It's for
people who don't recognize their strengths and weaknesses for what they are and want to get to the top just for the sake of it. Whether being at the
top is the best thing for business is irrelevant, just so long as they're on top and can say "Look me. I won" All the while their business is going
down the sh***er because they don't know what they're doing. But hey, thank God we live in a country where we're free to compete with each other.
Right?

So you don't like competition. Okay, I get that. What else do you have to say . . . . ?

It's people like you and Romney who are sinking this ship because you're the 5 years old's who put their hands over their eyes and say "Since I
can't see you, you're not there." Obama doesn't do that and it pisses people off. People want an "American" in the White House. Whatever the hell
that is. America is a global country. Always has been. You know, that immigrant thing? That thing that no other country does nearly to the extent that
we've ALWAYS done? To lead a country as if there is only one race and ethnicity within it when there is, in fact, more different races and ethnicities
here than any other country is about the most socially retarded thing you can do. Look at the cross section of the people who live in this country vs.
the cross section of the people who run this country and you'll see a disparity that's at the heart of the problem.

Five years old? Really, more like 7. Maybe 7 and a half. Anyway, America is a state of mind, and any argument you have towards globalisation is
going to be flawed. Because it is the antihesis to the Constitrution. Unless you're wanting to trash that along with Obama.

The best thing you can do for the sake of the position of POTUS? Bring someone in who has world experience. Like Obama. Or at this point,
Hillary Clinton. ( You hear that U.N.? ) Someone who knows how the world works. We all know how America "works". No mystery there. The political
machine needs to die and we all know it. It needs to be replaced with a business model, with NO political affiliation, that has a global agenda
because we are a part of the global community that has no uniform political agenda. Problem is, people can't see past the town they live in. People
like you. People choose not to see the whole picture. Go back to my "5 year old" analogy, grow up and bring America with you. Otherwise it's going to
stay in the 2nd grade, walking in circles with a limp, while it's "competition" graduates college.

See? You said 2nd grade. Easily 8 years old now.

Again, more argument towards globalisation. *meh* Not my cuppa' thank you very much.

What the London Daily Telegraph calls one of Romney’s “advisors” told the paper that Romney was better positioned to understand and respect the
‘special relationship’ between the US and Great Britain than President Obama, whose father was from Kenya.

Said the advisor: “We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special. The White House didn’t fully
appreciate the shared history we have.”

Pure apartheid racism.

I was thinking that we were living in 21st century.

I think from all the goods , we can be racist or enthusiastic users of technology.

You mean the liberal republican voting bloc. Romney is at moderate and probably should be considered liberal. Ron Paul is the only conservative
running.. it's a shame that he is getting buried.

The media has confused people as to the meanings of liberal and conservative. They have made it where being liberal sounds hip to young kids. Liberal
- free- progressive, in reality it means big government, more laws, more spending (which often means escalation of war), more control. Conservative -
less government, less regulation, less control (less police hopefully), less spending (giving our money to other countries), and finally less war.

Conservative is actually the cooler, more hip and free of the two. Liberal people choose conservative government, conservative people choose liberal
government.

This is funny, America really needs another "white man's touch" right now, right? I mean, he has some good points about an established white man
having better relations with Great Britain than Barack Obama, but Obama, with his background, has better relations to the poor and middle-class, as
well as the Muslim world and the Far East.

Unless you want to host a tea party, I think I can tell which one seems more useful.

I disagree. I would have voted for Powell, I still wish he'd run because I think he would honestly be one of the best Presidents in the past century.
But I can honestly say that, even if I were inclined to agree with Obama's positions, I'm tired of the race pandering BS by the left and would vote
against him just on that reasoning. The article you posted was incredibly biased, the original article in context is not racist at all. But you know
what is racist? Crying racism all the time. Annoying as hell.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.